The Pentagon's New Map
War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century
By Thomas P.M. Barnett
G.P. Putnum & Sons
HC, 435 pg. US$/C$39
ISBN: 0-3991-5175-3

A vision for the future

By Steven Martinovich
web posted May 3, 2004
 
As commentator Mark Steyn has argued, on September 11,
2001 many of us realized that the rules of September 10, 2001
were no longer valid. Perhaps no one more so than Dr. Thomas
Barnett, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, who for the
past decade has been examining the world after the Cold War.
Sensing that rules that have governed the world disappeared
along with the Soviet Union, Barnett has formulated a new set of
rules for our new reality.

Originally outlined in a 2003 article in Esquire, Barnett's
magnificent The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the
Twenty-First Century argues that the moral mission of the United
States is to extend the benefits of globalization to the one-third of
the world that is disconnected from the global community.
America's new strategy isn't to prepare for the next great clash of
civilizations, as commentators like Samuel Huntington have
theorized, but rather to create a more secure world by
eliminating the seeds of conflict.

In Barnett's world, Earth is essentially made up of two groups.
The first is the Functioning Core, nations like the U.S., Canada,
much of Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India and several other
nations. The second is the Non-Integrating Gap, made up of the
Middle East, most of Africa, parts of Central and South America
and parts of Asia. The Core is defined by economic, political
and military stability while the Gap is home to poverty,
authoritarian regimes and conflict. Led by the U.S., Barnett
argues, it is the Core's mission to shrink the Gap and usher in a
new era of relative global stability.

Not surprisingly much of the work will be the responsibility of the
United States as it is the only nation powerful enough to act
anywhere it chooses. Before it can be successful, however, a
massive reorganization is needed. The centerpiece of this
reorganization is the Pentagon, an institution Barnett says remains
mired in Cold War thinking. Although it is slowly shifting its
emphasis from fighting The Big One to the new asymmetrical
threats of 9/11-style attacks, the transformation is far from
complete. There will be future wars that the U.S. will be drawn
into; conflicts were a massive Cold War style force will be of
little use.

This new military -- one that would eventually see the present
force split into two radically different organizations -- would then
be used to provide security to Gap nations. It is only with
security, Barnett argues, that globalization will be able to take
root. As Gap nations are slowly added to the Core, these
regions will become safer and by extension the threats to global
security will diminish. The United States -- with help from other
nations -- will play the role of global policeman and occasionally,
when necessary, global SWAT officers.

Understandably this vision of the future will provoke accusations
on both sides of the political fence that Barnett is describing
nothing less than an American empire. American soldiers will be
used to enforce a global capitalist order for the benefit of the
West, they argue, in the same way that British redcoats once
safeguarded colonial provinces. Barnett dismisses that notion as
simplistic and insulting.

"America does not shrink the Gap to conquer the Gap, but to
invite two billion people to join something better and safer in the
Core. Empires involve enforcing maximum rule sets, where the
leader tells the led not just what they cannot do but what they
must do. This has never been the American way of war or
peace, and does not reflect our system of governance. We
enforce minimum rule sets, carefully ruling out only the most
obviously destructive behavior. We push connectivity above all
else, letting people choose what to do with those ties, that
communication, and all those possibilities. Many in the Gap, and
not just a few in the Core, will choose to opt out."

For the most part Barnett praises the Bush Administration for
realizing that a new strategic vision was necessary, including
formally adopting the policy of preemptive attack. He does,
however, find fault in the Administration for failing to explain
clearly to both Americans and their nation's allies how this new
strategic vision will work. "It may seem facile to say that this
administration has made the right strategic moves only to tell its
story poorly to the world, but perceptions matter plenty in this
highly charged period of world history." Given the strained
relationship between the U.S. and its allies, it's clearly not enough
simply to do the right thing; you have to convince people you're
doing the right thing.

Eschewing the gloomy predictions of a world in constant chaos,
Barnett instead offers an optimistic view of a future that many of
us will be alive to see. We will have to pay a price to see this
future, both in blood and money, but if we do nothing we'll have
to pay and receive nothing for our troubles but more strife.
Regardless of whether you agree with Barnett, The Pentagon's
New Map is a remarkable and revolutionary achievement that
should provoke discussion about the rules governing our post-
9/11 world. The Pentagon's New Map is a once in a generation
achievement that demands not only our attention, but also our
action.

Steven Martinovich is a freelance writer in Sudbury, Ontario,
Canada.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com